Speak for yourself, or for Trumpers, or for Republicans. For other groups provide proof.Oilpan4 said:Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
^This^Oilpan4 said:Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
SageBrush said:Speak for yourself, or for Trumpers, or for Republicans. For other groups provide proof.Oilpan4 said:Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
Second, it is not a tax.
It is a willingness to sometimes pay more now to reduce the (delayed to one degree or another) harmful effects of pollution and carbon.
Oilpan4 said:"The AP found Americans don’t want to pay very much to fight climate change. A $1 per month fee was favored by 57 percent of those surveyed. However, if the monthly charge increased to $10 a month, just 28 percent would be supportive, while 68 opposed".
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna962001
LTLFTcomposite said:^This^Oilpan4 said:Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.
Lothsahn said:I bet you could get a significant minority of Republicans to buy into a carbon tax if it came with an income tax cut.
BS.Oilpan4 said:LTLFTcomposite said:^This^Oilpan4 said:Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.
Of course that's what's going to happen.
LTLFTcomposite said:^This^Oilpan4 said:Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.
The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of –1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
SageBrush said:BS.Oilpan4 said:LTLFTcomposite said:^This^
They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.
Of course that's what's going to happen.
There are infinite ways to reduce carbon pollution without taxation. You are just making excuses. Look at your own posts -- you tell us that your burn coal in your home. You posted a nonsensical alarmist thread that electric rates in NM are going to drastically rise due to carbon regulation.
SageBrush said:BS.Oilpan4 said:LTLFTcomposite said:^This^
They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.
Of course that's what's going to happen.
There are infinite ways to reduce carbon pollution without taxation. You are just making excuses. Look at your own posts -- you tell us that your burn coal in your home. You posted a nonsensical alarmist thread that electric rates in NM are going to drastically rise due to carbon regulation.
Oilpan4
I'm like most of the people in that survey.
Believe in climate change and don't believe in paying for it for.
You can only be responsible for yourself.Oilpan4 said:Okay let's say, you convinced me.
Now convince the other 68% of voters to open their wallets and pay up too. Or even just get the undecided people to pay up.
SageBrush said:You can only be responsible for yourself.Oilpan4 said:Okay let's say, you convinced me.
Now convince the other 68% of voters to open their wallets and pay up too. Or even just get the undecided people to pay up.
That is why you presumably vote. Your choice is stark: you can choose an AGW denying idiot who thinks coal is clean, or a politician who recognizes AGW as a national emergency
That is why you choose whether to burn coal and wood in your home.
That is why you choose whether to tell your utility if you want clean energy.
Your vote may fail, but without it you definitely fail.
Oilpan4 said:I'm like most of the people in that survey.
Believe in climate change
SageBrush said:Second, it is not a tax.
It is a willingness to sometimes pay more now to reduce the (delayed to one degree or another) harmful effects of pollution and carbon.
OMG school teachers can't afford to put gas in their tanks. Women and children hardest hit. Let me guess, carbon tax subsidies to offset the disproportionate burden.
Lothsahn said:SageBrush said:Second, it is not a tax.
It is a willingness to sometimes pay more now to reduce the (delayed to one degree or another) harmful effects of pollution and carbon.
Let's not lie. Unless it's voluntary, it's a tax. It may be a tax levied to account for the harm on society. The tax is completely reasonable--if you damage my life and property (which air pollution does), ethically you should compensate me. But it is still a tax.
Secondly, proposing a compromise where there is a carbon tax for a revenue neutral income tax cut is not "their playbook". I would much prefer we simply levy a carbon tax, take all proceeds, and issue a quarterly tax-free check divided evenly amongst all American citizens. The money would never touch the general fund at all. Universal Basic Income and environmental protection all at once. But if we cannot get majority support for an initiative like that, I would propose an income tax cut to make it revenue neutral. I suspect that is something that could pass.
Stop trying to group everyone into "us" and "them". You have good facts and arguments, which you repeatedly undermine with your insults and identity politics.
Oilpan4 said:[friendly idea of your own making that might convince some who already believes in climate change to pay up.
Enter your email address to join: